College of Forestry and Conservation (CFC)
Academic Year 2014-2015 Assessment Report
Mission Statement
Through innovative teaching, research, and service, the College of Forestry and Conservation
empowers society and its future leaders to better understand and more effectively conserve,
restore, and sustain complex social-ecological systems in the Rocky Mountains and beyond. The
strategic goal for the College of Forestry and Conservation is to provide educational programs
that equip future leaders with the knowledge and skills necessary to solve complex
environmental challenges by integrating teaching and scholarship to deliver the best education
and training to the next generation of conservation professionals, including those from societal
groups that are typically underrepresented in the natural resources sector.
Since the delivery of the College of Forestry and Conservation (CFC) undergraduate and
graduate curricula are integrated across departments, faculty in each department serve the needs
of all CFC students at some point in a student’s academic career. Thus, the educational mission
and strategic goals are common across the three CFC departments.
CFC has 5 undergraduate majors. This report, submitted for UM’s 2014/2015 Assessment
Report, summarizes assessment activities and curricular maps for 4 of the CFC majors
(Ecological Restoration; Forestry; Parks, Tourism, and Recreation Management; and Resource
Conservation). The fifth major, Wildlife Biology, is a joint program shared with the Division of
Biological Sciences and Montana Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit. Because of its joint
nature, the assessment report for this major is submitted separately.
At the undergraduate level, CFC also offers 3 undergraduate minors (Ecological Restoration,
Fire Sciences & Management, and Wilderness Studies), partners with other University
departments to jointly offer 2 minors (Climate Change Studies, Wildlife Biology), and partners
with the Department of Geography to offer a GIS Certificate. Also at the undergraduate level,
CFC runs a Study Abroad Program that includes courses going to the Indian Himalaya, New
Zealand, Chile-Patagonia, Peru, and Vietnam. We are working on expanding this program to
include offerings in other countries.
At the graduate level CFC offers 3 MS degrees (Forestry, Recreation Management, and Resource
Conservation) and 1 PhD degree (Forestry and Conservation). The MS in Resource
Conservation includes an International Conservation and Development option that integrates an
international experience to these students’ program of graduate studies. Additionally CFC
partners with other units on campus to jointly offer 2 MS degrees (Wildlife Biology, Systems
Ecology) and 2 PhD degrees (Fish and Wildlife Biology, Systems Ecology). CFC also partners
with other units on campus to offer graduate level certificates in GIS Sciences and Technologies,
Natural Resources Conflict Resolution, and Wilderness Management (through a distance
education program).
Measurement Tools for Assessments Conducted in this Period
College-wide Assessment – Student Ratings:
One of the assessment changes the College of Forestry and Conservation has made since the last
program assessment report is a shift to using the student course evaluations as one means of
assessing and monitoring quality instruction. Historically CFC used the student course
evaluations only as part of the CBA mandated faculty evaluation process. However, last year we
started compiling data on ratings for “course as a whole” and “instructor effectiveness” as one
basis for assessing and monitoring across time the quality of our teaching at a programmatic
level. Under this process, each semester, we analyze/report the percent of courses for which
70% or more of the students rate the course/instructor effectiveness as Excellent/Very Good. We
also identify the percentage of courses in which 30% or more of the students rate the
course/instructor as Fair/Poor/Very Poor. Separately we chart the actual distribution of ratings in
each class for all courses with a given prefix on a single page to allow a more detailed analysis of
how ratings are distributed in specific courses (this summary is not included in this report
because it is traceable back to specific faculty). These data are then reviewed by the Department
Chairs who decide whether the information warrants follow-up action.
Additionally, all majors in CFC encourage, and some require, employment as part of the
undergraduate curricula. Since the last assessment, CFC has conducted surveys of our seniors
(to examine employment experience while a student) and of a sample of our alumni (last year, 5
years out, and 10 years out) to examine post-graduation placement.
Forestry Major Assessment – Upper Division Writing Assessment
Grading rubric scores for written assignments were collected for one of the distributed upperdivision writing courses in Spring 2014. The rubric is based on a 5-point scale (with 5
representing the highest score).
Resource Conservation Major Assessment – Upper Division Writing Assessment
Resource Conservation faculty are working on assessment measures for a subset of the
distributed upper-division writing courses (e.g. FORS 330, NRSM 422, NRSM 379, NRSM 475,
NRSM 489). Assessment measures will be drawn from final/core papers or analyses in 4-5
senior-level courses. These assessment measures will be implemented in 2015. Resource
Conservation students will also complete exit surveys beginning in 2015.
Results and Modifications
College-wide Assessment – Student Ratings:
The results of this analysis are summarized in Appendix 1. The data were informative in
identifying issues we should address with respect to provision of our curriculum. A pattern that
was immediately apparent is that classes taught by TA’s and adjuncts typically received lower
ratings than those taught by our permanent faculty. As a result we have increased our early
semester communication with TA’s and adjuncts and the Associate Dean reaches out to make
sure these individuals know he is available to address issues that arise. We intend to expand
these outreach efforts further. Additionally, the report to the Department Chairs flags specific
courses that might need special attention. Department Chairs have used this information to help
decide whether to continue with specific adjuncts. For those on-going instructors who have low
positive ratings (i.e. substantially below the 70% excellent/very good) and/or high negative
ratings (at or above the > 30% fair/poor/very poor) we have asked the Chairs to look into the
situation to consider whether the instructors are addressing the situation and to consider if
additional mentoring is necessary. Treating the teaching evaluations in this way has been
informative and helped us change our practice. We intend to continue to track teaching
evaluations in the manner illustrated in the Appendix 1 tables, to expand our pre-semester
outreach to TA’s and adjuncts, and to more proactively look for opportunities to have TA’s
“apprentice” with established faculty in the semester before they teach a class. We also will
continue to encourage Chairs to review this information each semester and, when appropriate, to
meet with faculty about the evaluations in preparation for offerings of the course in subsequent
semesters.
Surveys regarding employment of our students before and after graduation indicated this
dimension of our program is highly effective. By the time they are seniors in their last semester,
95% of our students have held a job or internship related to their major, 80% of these are paid
positions, and these positions were with 160 different employers. The survey of alumni indicates
that 97% of our graduates are employed or in graduate school, 85% of those employed are in
fields related to the major they studied in. While some of the jobs for recent graduates are
seasonal, these seasonal jobs appear to lead to full time employment – 10 years after graduation,
82% of CFC alumni were working full-time in their field of study. Although these data indicate
good success with respect to linking students to employment opportunities, CFC has worked to
enhance our efforts to support students in this area. Working with Career and Internship
Services we have developed a stronger job search feature on our website (see
http://www.cfc.umt.edu/resources/job-search.php) which students can use to seek internships,
seasonal jobs and permanent jobs. This database is actively managed and kept up-to-date.
Additionally, we have created an interactive Goolge-map (see
http://www.cfc.umt.edu/resources/jobs.php) which allows prospective and current students to see
where our students are getting the internship and summer jobs that meet our curricular work
requirements.
Forestry Major Assessment
These data will serve as a baseline to help assess the writing preparation and skill development
within the Forestry Major. The Table below reports the average scores on the 5-point scale for
each evaluation element. Writing assignments shown are in chronological order. (Note:
Students are allowed rewrites on these assignments.)
Assignment
Field Lab 1/27/14
Field Lab 2/10/14
Model Yarder Lab
Slash Lab
Road Introduction
Lab
Ashby Creek Lab
Quality of
WritingOrganization
4.53
4.93
4.95
4.62
Grammar
and
Punctuation
4.00
3.83
4.79
4.60
Content
Accurate
5.00
4.88
5.00
4.81
Content
Complete
3.64
4.51
4.40
3.31
5.00
4.68
4.81
4.93
5.00
5.00
4.53
4.37
APPENDIX 1: CFC Student Ratings By Course Prefix
Fall 2013
Reported are questions 1 and 4 from the student evaluation sheets. Subsequent pages contain detailed
tabulations [not included in this report since this data are traceable back to individual faculty].
Q1 Course as a whole rating as a whole:
Faculty taught classes > 70% Excellent/Very Good ratings
TA/Adj taught classes > 70% Excellent/Very Good ratings
FORS
12/21,2
83%
0%
NRSM
16/11,3
25%
0%
PTRM
7/11
100%
0%
WILD
7/11
100%
50%
WRIT
3/01
0%
-
Faculty taught classes > 30% Fair/Poor/Very Poor ratings
0%
19%
0%
0%
0%
TA/Adj taught classes> 30% Fair/Poor/Very Poor ratings
100%
100%
0%
0%
1
# of Faculty taught classes/# of TA/Adj Taught Classes (note: for this report “faculty” includes all permanent
tenure-line and nontenure-line positions, adjuncts includes only temporary hires)
2
Note: FORS 391 had 2 instructors and is rated twice, FORS 538 had 2 instructors, each rated separately
3
Note: ENSC 245 included with NRSM, had 3 instructors, each rated separately)
Q4 Instructor Effectiveness:
Faculty taught classes > 70% Excellent/Very Good ratings
TA/Adj taught classes > 70% Excellent/Very Good ratings
Faculty taught classes > 30% Fair/Poor/Very Poor ratings
TA/Adj taught classes> 30% Fair/Poor/Very Poor ratings
Same footnotes as above
Average Response Rates:
Faculty – course as a whole
TA/Adj – course as a whole
Faculty – instructor effectiveness
TA/Adj – instructor effectiveness
FORS
12/21,2
92%
0%
NRSM
16/11,3
50%
0%
PTRM
7/11
100%
0%
WILD
7/11
100%
50%
WRIT
3/01
100%
-
0%
100%
19%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
-
FORS
57%
67%
NRSM
76%
60%
PTRM
85%
83%
WILD
67%
75%
WRIT
70%
-
56%
67%
75%
60%
85%
83%
62%
71%
70%
-
Observations:
• Overall, ratings suggest well-received curricula and effective teachers
• Classes taught by TA’s and adjuncts typically are rated lower than those taught by faculty (3
courses that had > 40% Fair/Poor/Very Poor ratings were identified).
• NRSM prefixes as a whole do rank lower in the proportion of students giving highest ratings
when data is split using the above cutoffs. Of the faculty taught classes:
o [identifier removed] seems to warrant attention (~60% Fair/Poor/Very Poor ratings)
o [identifier removed], offered in its current mode for the first time, also appears to warrant
attention (in 2 sections 40% rated it as Fair/Poor/Very Poor and 1 section ~30% did so)
• There is nearly a 30% difference in average Student Response rate by major (high = PTRM
@85%, low FORS @57%)
Spring 2014
Reported are questions 1 and 4 from the student evaluation sheets. Subsequent pages contain detailed
tabulations [not included in this report since this data are traceable back to individual faculty].
Q1 Course as a whole rating as a whole:
Faculty taught classes > 70% Excellent/Very Good ratings
TA/Adj taught classes > 70% Excellent/Very Good ratings
FORS
16/21,2
63%
0%
NRSM
11/41
64%
0%
PTRM
4/31
50%
33%
WILD
6/31
83%
66%
WRIT
3/31
0%
33%
Faculty taught classes > 30% Fair/Poor/Very Poor ratings
6%
9%
0%
17%
0%
TA/Adj taught classes> 30% Fair/Poor/Very Poor ratings
0%
0%
0%
0%
33%
1
# of Faculty taught classes/# of TA/Adj Taught Classes (note: for this report “faculty” includes all permanent
tenure-line and nontenure-line positions, adjuncts includes only temporary hires)
2
Note: FORS 330 had 2 TA instructors and is rated twice.
Q4 Instructor Effectiveness:
Faculty taught classes > 70% Excellent/Very Good ratings
TA/Adj taught classes > 70% Excellent/Very Good ratings
Faculty taught classes > 30% Fair/Poor/Very Poor ratings
TA/Adj taught classes> 30% Fair/Poor/Very Poor ratings
Same footnotes as above
Average Response Rates:
Faculty – course as a whole
TA/Adj – course as a whole
Faculty – instructor effectiveness
TA/Adj – instructor effectiveness
FORS
12/21,2
69%
0%
NRSM
11/41
55%
0%
PTRM
4/31
75%
66%
WILD
6/31
83%
66%
WRIT
3/31
33%
67%
0%
50%
0%
25%
0%
33%
0%
0%
0%
33%
FORS
57%
61%
NRSM
83%
51%
PTRM
63%
67%
WILD
90%
72%
WRIT
67%
78%
57%
60%
81%
51%
62%
67%
89%
72%
67%
78%
Observations:
• Overall ratings suggest well received courses & effective teachers. But compared to Fall 2013
overall course quality ratings trend somewhat lower in all prefixes except NRSM (which had only
25% in the Excellent/Very Good category in Fall).
• Classes taught by TA’s and adjuncts again are typically rated lower than those taught by faculty
especially with respect to instructor effectiveness.
o 50% of respondents rated a section of [identifier removed] Fair/Poor/Very Poor on
teaching effectiveness (but this same individual taught the most highly rated section of
[identifier removed] (~88% Excellent/Very good rating on effectiveness)
o > 40% of respondents in [identifier removed] rated teaching effectiveness Fair/Poor/Very
Poor – since this individual who has been scheduled to teach both semesters this year,
some attention here seems warranted.
o > 35% of respondents in [identifier removed] rated teaching effectiveness Fair/Poor/Very
Poor – since that individual is being considered again, this might warrant attention.
• Of the faculty taught classes:
o > 40% of respondents rated [identifier removed] Fair/Poor/Very Poor
o ~35% of respondents rated [identifier removed] Fair/Poor/Very Poor
o ~29% of respondents rated [identifier removed] Fair/Poor/Very Poor
APPENDIX 2: CURRICULM MAPS
B.S. in Ecological Restoration Degree
Learning Outcomes
1. Demonstrate a thorough understanding of the natural science and ecosystem management
foundations of ecological restoration.
2. Demonstrate knowledge of the human dimensions of restoration practice.
3. Critically analyze scientific theories and ecosystem management practices and integrate
concepts within these two fields.
4. Demonstrate proficiency in field methods, data collection, and data management, and basic
knowledge of statistics and sampling design.
5. Develop and apply written and oral communication skills to restoration science and practice.
6. Develop and implement an independent project that contributes to either the field of
restoration ecology or to restoration efforts.
Key to Curriculum Map (see following page):
“I”= introduced; “D” = developed/reinforced, with opportunities to practice; “M” = mastery
that is demonstrated; and “A”=assessment evidence is collected. Lower case letters indicate
that letter only applies if certain courses are selected.
Course Rubric & #
CORE
BIOB 160N
BIOB 260
BIOB 272
BIOE 370
CHMY 121N
CHMY 123N
COMX111A; or THTR 120A
FORS 201; WILD 240; or STAT 216
NRSM 121S, 170, or 180
NRSM 265
NRSM 365
NRSM 385
NRSM 422
NRSM 444
NRSM 449E or 489E
NRSM 494
NRSM 495
WRIT 101
WRIT 325; or NRSM 200
Social Elective
AQUATIC OPTION
BIOE 428
GEO 101N/102N
M 171
M 172
AQ Electives
TERRESTRIAL OPTION
BIOO 105N
BIOO 335
FORS 330 or 360; or BIOE 447 or
448
M 162
NRSM 210
TERR Electives
Course Title
Principles of Living Systems
Cell & Molecular Biology
Genetics & Evolution
General Ecology
General Chemistry
Organic & Bio Chem
Public Speaking; or Intro to Acting
Forest Biometrics; Intro to Biostats; or Statistics
Nature of Montana; International Env. Change; or Careers in Natural Resources
Elem of Ecol Restoration
Restoration Ecology
Watershed Hydrology
Natural Resource Policy
Ecological Restoration Capstone
Climate Change Ethics or Ethics Forestry and Conservation
Seminar in Ecol Rest
Ecological Restoration Practicum
College Writing
Science Writing; or Natural Resources Professional Writing
Students select from list
1
Intended Learning Outcomes
2
3
4
5
I
I
I
I, D
I
I
I, D
I
I
I
I, D
M
I
M, A
M, A
M, A
I
I
I, D
I, D
M, A
I
I, D
M
I
M, A
M, A
M, A
M, A
I
D
D
I
I, D
M, A
I, D
M, A
M, A
M, A
M
M
I
D
D, M
M, A
D
Freshwater Ecology
Intro to Physical Geology
Calc 1
Calc 2
Students select from list
I, D
I
I
I
M
D, m
I
I
I
I
d, m
Botany
Rocky Mtn Flora
Forest Ecology; Range Ecology; Terr. Ecosys. Ecology; or Terr. Plant Ecology
I
I, D
I, D
D
D
D
D, m
I
I
d, m
Applied Calculus
Soils, water, climate
Students select from list
6
I
I
M
M, A
m, a
M, A
M, A
B.S. in Forestry Degree
Learning Outcomes
1. Incorporate biological, social, and physical science, ecological principles and processes into
the analysis of natural resource issues
2. Conduct and integrate both quantitative and qualitative analyses to critically analyze natural
resource management problems
3. Develop written and oral communication skills to be successful in a professional
environment
4. Formulate implementable plans at a range of scales that incorporate multiple resource values
Key to Curriculum Map
"I"=Introduced; "D"= developed/reinforced, with opportunities to practice; "M"=mastery that is
demonstrated; "A"=assessment evidence collected; “A*”=assessment planned
Core courses
FORS 130 Intro to Forestry Field Skills
CHMY 121 General Chemistry
M 151 Pre-Calculus
WRIT 101 College Writing
BIOB 160 Principles of Living Systems
M 162 Calculus OR PHSX 205/206 Physics
COMM 111 Speech OR THRT 120 Intro to Acting
FORS 201 Forest Biometrics
NRSM 210 Soil, Climate, and Water
FORS 240 Tree Biology
FORS 241 Dendrology
FORS 202 Forest Mensuration
NRSM 200 Natural Resource Professional Writing
FORS 284 Intro to GIS and Cartography
ECNS 201 Intro to Microeconomics
FORS 320 Forest Economics
FORS 330 Forest Ecology
FORS 340 Forest Products Manufacture
FORS 349 Practice of Silviculture
FORS 341 Timber Harvesting and Roads
NRSM 385 Watershed Hydrology
FORS 440 Forest Stand Management
NRSM 422 Natural Resource Policy and Administration
Forest Operations Option (required courses only)
FORS 434 Advanced Forest Roads
FORS 435 Advanced Timber Harvesting
FORS 436 Project Appraisal
Forest Resources Management (required course
only)
FORS 481 Forest Planning
1
I
I
Learning Outcomes
2
3
I
4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
D
I
I
D
D
D
D
M
M
M, A
M
M, A*
I
D
I
M, A*
D
M
M
M
M, A*
B.S. in Parks, Tourism, and Recreation Management Degree
Learning Outcomes
1. Examine the relationship between society, the environment, and the economy in the
context of recreation and tourism including; benefits to individuals, society and the
environment, history and philosophy of outdoor recreation and nature-tourism, current
issues, and new approaches
2. Explain the role of various agencies- public, private, non-profit and commercial that
provide recreation and tourism services and manage natural resources for recreation and
tourism.
3. Summarize the principles and practices necessary for the effective management of
recreation and tourism users in natural resources settings.
4. Explain theories of leadership and the use of the law in the administration of leisure
services, including risk management, land management, human rights, financing, and
personnel.
5. Evaluate the social, economic, cultural and environmental impacts associated with
multiple uses of natural resources for recreation and tourism.
6. Synthesize the principles of land-use planning, including identification, evaluation,
development, and management of land and water resources and their relationship to and
impact upon the natural environment.
7. Apply the principles and practices of stewardship and sustainability in the use of natural
resources for recreation and tourism and demonstrate the ability to interpret them to the
general public, particularly as related to the public's role in stewardship.
Key to Curriculum Map:
“I”= introduced; “D” = developed/reinforced, with opportunities to practice; “M” = mastery
that is demonstrated; and “A”=assessment evidence is collected.
Required Course
PTRM 210
PTRM 217s
PTRM 300
PTRM 310
PTRM 380
PTRM 451-W
PTRM 482-W
PTRM 484
PTRM 485
PTRM 498
#1
I
I
D
D
A
A
M
M
M,A
#2
I
I
D
M
M
A
A
#3
I
D
#4
I
I
D
D
M,A
#5
I
I
D
M,A
M
A
I
#7
I
D
M,A
M,A
M,A
M
M,A
#6
D,A
M
M,A
A
B.S. in Resource Conservation Degree
Learning Outcomes
1. Demonstrate foundational knowledge in biological and physical sciences relevant to
natural resources and conservation.
2. Develop and apply written and oral communication skills to natural resources and
conservation.
3. Develop and apply quantitative and qualitative analysis skills to natural resources and
conservation.
4. Understand and assess complex ecological and social concepts and how they apply to
natural resources and conservation.
5. Build and apply expertise in specialized areas of natural resources and conservation.
Key to Curriculum Map
"I"=Introduced; "D"= developed/reinforced, with opportunities to practice; "M"=mastery that is
demonstrated; "A"=assessment evidence collected; “A*”=assessment planned
Required Courses
COMM 111 Public Speaking
NRSM 200 Natural Resource Professional Writing
Math (M 115 or higher)
Statistics (FORS 201, STAT 216, or SOCI 202)
FORS 250 GIS
Biology (BIOB 160, BIOB 170, BIOO 105, or BIOE
172)
CHMY 121
NRSM 210 Soil, Water, and Climate
Ecology (FORS 330, NRSM 462, or BIOE 370)
Natural Resource or Wildlife Policy (NRSM 422 or
WILD 410)
Social Science (NRSM 379, NRSM 424, NRSM 426,
NRSM 475, or PTRM 300)
Ethics (NRSM 489 or NRSM 449)
Additional coursework in area of emphasis (more than 40
CFC courses can contribute to these emphases)
#1
#2
D
D
#3
#4
#5
D
D
D
M
M
M
M
MA* MA* MA*
MA* MA* MA*
MA* MA* MA*
MA* MA* MA*
M